TELLING IT LIKE IT IS !

I’m Voting For Those Not Yet Born

By Chuck Norris

My, how the landscape of elections has changed. Remember when the issue of abortion used to matter to conservatives in political races? Today presidential nominees can get away with murder, literally. They can smoke, toke and hang out with terrorists who do. What were once considered legitimate leadership litmus tests are now regarded as off-limit character assassinations and hate language. Recently, some nonprofit organizations have been threatened with the withdrawal of their tax-exempt statuses because their leaders merely voiced opposition to what they consider a moral issue: abortion.

Some people think after 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade that abortion is an “old” issue better dropped. I disagree. I do believe the economy is an important issue in this election, but it’s certainly not the only issue. We can’t just be concerned about our finances. We also must be concerned about America’s future and those who will occupy it. Our posterity matters. Their rights matter. And that includes their “unalienable Rights,” with which they have been “endowed by their Creator,” and among them are the quintessential rights: “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Abortion is not about a woman’s “right to choose”; it is about a more fundamental “right to life,” which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government’s primary purpose: to protect innocent life.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. His belief in what should be “the first and only legitimate object of good government” still should stand. Like Jefferson, our next president needs to uphold those same concerns, not say that such arenas are “above his paygrade.” If he and his administration won’t protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? A left-leaning Congress?

The truth is if Obama is elected, we will place a man in the highest office in the land who has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies unintentionally left alive by abortions. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the partial-birth ban. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor from another state. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. Before a Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, Obama promised to give first priority as president to the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would make partial-birth abortion legal again. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” caused by an unwanted pregnancy. With the next president likely adding two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear that as president, Obama would appoint and support the most liberal judges and legal eagles, resulting in a pro-abortion advantage in our courts that would push abortion liberties to every extent of the law and land.

America’s Founders shared a basic view of human life and conception: Humanity is special, unique and should be set apart from the rest of creation. In fact, in early America, there were two basic beliefs that shaped most people’s views of humanity: God created us equal, and we are the highest creation of God. Their views were based on creation narratives in the Bible and expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In order for us to get back to our Founders’ understanding, we need to get back to a view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. (That’s why I’ve devoted an entire chapter to “Reclaim the value of human life” in my new cultural manifesto, “Black Belt Patriotism.”)

My friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn recently was asked by a young woman, “Should we vote for who we think should lead our country solely based on their stance on abortion?” You can read Randy’s insightful response to that question on his Web site and blog (www.epm.org). I would respond to it by simply saying we all will answer that question in just one week, when we go to the ballot boxes.

Winning the election is not just about what the underdogs – such as John McCain and Sarah Palin, two maverick pro-life advocates – should do. But it’s about what the citizens who are fighting for the underdogs can do. We the people must stand up, go back to the basics, and once again vote our values.

America‘s future and the future of our children are at stake.

The election of senators and representatives is very important. If the liberals win enough seats to kill a filibuster in the Senate, then there will be no stopping the damage they can do in just two years. Do want that much power in the hands of liberals?

Activist justices who will be appointed to the Supreme Court for 20 to 40 years can make any law they wish, or override any law they wish. The liberals are already planning to remove every law prohibiting abortion, make homosexual marriage legal, and take away our religious and First Amendment freedoms.

A veto-proof Senate would guarantee that every bill the liberals want to pass, they can. In two short years, the liberals can undo every law that it has taken conservatives 40 years to accomplish.

When you vote, be sure that you keep this in mind! The election of one conservative senator could make the difference!

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is the duty and responsibility of every Christian to vote and to vote for leaders who promote Christian principles. If a candidate is not 100% in line with a biblical principle, then the candidate who supports that principle the strongest is the one who should obtain your vote! Following and promoting Christian principles are God’s will. Does God Expect Christians To Vote? Yes, He does!

The leaders we elect – or do nothing to remove – have great influence on our freedoms. They can choose to protect our right to worship and spread the Gospel, or they can restrict those rights. They can lead our nation towards righteousness or towards moral disaster.

As I hear “Christians” talk about the 2008 Presidential Elections I have been tremendously disappointed and frustrated. There is a lack of concern about where the candidates are spiritually, or even morally. Their concern has become more personal … no … actually more selfish. There seems to be a greater concern about what they can get from the government programs and candidate promises as opposed to the higher calling to “in-context” biblical values.

It seems “Christians” have thrown off biblical values and embraced the world of “free” healthcare, affirmative action, my this, my that … and yes, my taxes and social security … oh yes, and personal opinion. These have become an overriding focus over God’s values … life, righteousness, justice. Abortion, same-sex marriage, family values, and other moral issues need to be enforced by the Christian voter … not disregarded. When Christians vote against biblical values then they are voting against what God says through His Word, thereby they are sinning. They seem to be looking at biblical instruction as options … which they are not.

Christians need to make a stand for life and righteousness. They also need to understand that without biblical values none of the other things really are going to improve anyway … they will just continue to decline! How would Jesus direct us to vote? HWJV: How Would Jesus Vote?

Do your homework. All the information is on the internet. Compare what they say with their records. What I have discovered in that comparison of facts is that Obama is dishonest, lies consistently, frequently changes his stories, tries to keep people in the dark about his life and associations, has socialist and Marxist mentors, had the most aggressive abortion thinking I have ever seen, punishes those who disagree with him, and is not just the most liberal Democrat but a functioning socialist. None of the candidates are perfect but Obama is the one who concerns me the most as I checked records and made comparisons.

Cal Thomas states it well on today’s commentary.

I love this country. This election is so much more than about economics. Don’t support someone simply because of their rhetoric. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be as shrewd as snakes.” Be careful of sheep in wolves clothing. Then vote!

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is the duty and responsibility of every Christian to vote and to vote for leaders who promote Christian principles. Following and promoting Christian principles are God’s will.

We are also commanded to pray for our leaders in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

In terms of politics and leadership, there is evidence in Scripture that God has been displeased with people’s choices of leadership at times (Hosea 8:4). The evidence of sin’s grip on this world is everywhere. So much of the suffering on earth is because of godless leadership (Proverbs 28:12). Scripture gives Christians instructions to obey legitimate authority unless it contradicts the Lord’s commands (Acts 5:27-29, Romans 13:1-7). As born again believers, we are to strive to choose leaders who will be themselves led by our Creator (1 Samuel 12:13-25). Candidates or proposals that violate the Bible’s commands for life, family, marriage, or faith should never be supported (Proverbs 14:34)! Christians should vote as led through prayer and study of both God’s Word and the realities of the choices on the ballot.

Christians in many countries in this world are oppressed and persecuted. They suffer under governments they are powerless to change … governments that hate their faith and silence their voices. (This will happen to us too if we allow ungodly people to rule over us.) These believers preach the gospel of Jesus Christ at risk of their own death. Many are killed so that others may benefit from the love of God. U.S. Christians have been blessed with the right to speak about and choose their leaders without fearing for themselves or their families … so far. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, about 2 of every 5 self-professed Christians took that right for granted and didn’t vote while about 1 in 5 didn’t even register to vote. Only 48% to 50% of Christians voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

In our day and age, there are many who want to drive the name and message of Christ completely out of the public eye. Voting is an opportunity to promote, protect, and preserve government that is not devoid of godly values. Passing up that opportunity means letting those who would denigrate the name of Christ have their way in changing how we live our lives.

The leaders we elect – or do nothing to remove – have great influence on our freedoms. They can choose to protect our right to worship and spread the Gospel, or they can restrict those rights. They can lead our nation towards righteousness or towards moral disaster. Christians in the United States must stand up and follow our command to fulfill our civic duties (Matthew 22:21).

A Demented Idea

Charles Colson

The Brits may be losing their marbles. The distinguished Baroness Warnock, labeled by the Daily Telegraph as Britain’s leading moral philosopher, ought to be ashamed of herself.

You see, Lady Warnock once chaired a government committee that helped legalize embryonic research. She’s known for supporting assisted suicide for people don’t want to burden their caregivers.

But now Lady Warnock has gone a step further. She says elderly people who suffer from dementia are “wasting people’s lives” – that is, the lives of those who care for them – and ought to choose to die even if they’re not suffering.

And even if they aren’t a burden on their families, they ought to “off” themselves anyway, as she puts it, because they’re a burden on the public, which, under British national health care, pays for their treatment. According to the Daily Telegraph, Warnock hopes people will soon be “licensed to put others down.”

Putting others down? That’s the kind of euphemism we use when talking about injured horses or sick dogs. It’s not how we talk about human beings – or at least, it’s not how we used to talk about them.

At age 84, Lady Warnock is old enough to remember Hitler’s Final Solution – and the thinking that drove the slaughter, not only of the Jews, but also of the handicapped, gypsies, and others the Nazis considered “defective” or “useless.”

But even though Lady Warnock should remember World War II, she evidently has forgotten its terrible lessons. Given her despicable recommendation for the elderly, she ought to hope that her memory issues aren’t related to dementia.

Thankfully, at least a few Brits are outraged by Warnock’s comments, calling them – in typical British understatement – both callous and deeply ignorant. Neil Hunt, a spokesman for the British Alzheimer’s Society, says to suggest that people with dementia “have some sort of duty to kill themselves is nothing short of barbaric.”

More ominously, a spokesman for a British right to life group said Warnock’s views “are an illustration that while euthanasia is promoted as a right to choose, it pretty rapidly becomes” an obligation to die.

This tale out of England is also a dire warning about what happens when countries nationalize health care. There’s never enough money to go around – and some bureaucrat at the top is always going to start making choices about who gets to live and who’s going to die. If those targeted for death don’t go willingly, well, they will need to be encouraged to die – or they might get a visit from someone “licensed to put others down.”

Has the Western world truly sunk this low? Do we ever need a more vivid reminder of the tremendous importance of worldview?

Either all human life – from unborn children to demented mothers and fathers – is created in the image of God and therefore infinitely precious, or humans are nothing but the result of mere chance, indistinguishable morally from a sand flea. The choice society makes will determine whether the most vulnerable among us will be respected and protected . . . or whether we will “put them down” when they become a burden.

We Christians must speak out as others – especially those in authority – move us closer and closer to compulsory killing.

If we do nothing, its evidence that perhaps we’ve all lost our marbles.

As opposed to the 2004 election process, the 2008 political campaign does not seem to be as concerned about where the candidates are spiritually, or even morally, even though some aspect of that has been made known.

The concern is more personal … actually more selfish, especially with Christians.

The Christian community, or has that become an oxymoron?, have become more concerned about what they can get from the government programs and promises as opposed to the higher calling to “in-context” biblical values.

It has become about “free” healthcare, affirmative action, my this, my that … and yes, my taxes and social security. These have become an overriding focus over God’s values … life, righteousness, justice. Abortion, same-sex marriage, family values, and other moral issues need to be enforced by the Christian vote. To vote against these issues by voting for the “what’s in it for me” would actually be a sin.

Without biblical values none of the other things are going to improve anyway … they will just continue to get worse!

So, how would Jesus process His vote?

First, Jesus would warn against “. . . people [who] honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Matthew 15:7-9) Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is actually living out Jesus’ teachings. If you are not living out His teachings you are sinning.

Second, Jesus would warn against those who parade their faith for personal – and political – gain. “Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 6:1)

Third, Jesus would ask, what’s your record on compassion issues that are important to Him? “I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink? I was a stranger and you invited me ink, I needed clothing and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. … I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sister of mine, you did it for me.” (Matthew 25:35-40) Did you take care of people?

Forth, Jesus would probe, have you been faithful valuing life? The unborn, the infirmed, the elderly? “You shall not murder.” (Exodus 20:13) God knows us from conception to death. (Psalm 139:13)

Fifth, Jesus would investigate, what are you teaching the children? “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

When we vote and evade the teachings of God’s Word … we sin. The consequences will then be invoked on both us and others.

Don’t support someone simply because he or she mouths the right spiritual sound bytes. Rather, follow Christ’s warning as you evaluate the candidates: “Be as shrewd as snakes.”

What Would Jesus Do?  Well, it depends on who you ask.

According to Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Jesus, the Son of God and Author of life would be in favor of suctioning viable babies from their mothers’ wombs and killing them.

On last night’s interview with Bill O’Reilly, the Obama supporter claimed that God’s Son would be “even more radical” than Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on partial-birth abortion.

Hill tried to rationalize his wildly implausible claim to a skeptical Bill O’Reilly, who ended the interview with a challenge for Obama to explain this position.  Hill, an Associate Professor of Urban Education and American Studies at Temple University, who should never be teaching anybody, made this pronouncement when O’Reilly asked him to reconcile Obama’s faith with his distinction as America’s most pro-abortion politician.

Like many in the political arena, Hill has it backwards.  Instead of bringing his political views under the authority of Scripture … as God calls us to do … Hill is seeking to make Christianity conform to his liberalism.

As such, the interview speaks to a much broader problem in modern politics.  Leaders like Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) have tried for years to redefine Christianity so that it is compatible with their anti-life, anti-family agenda.  Many, like Obama, have turned the Bible into a theological smorgasbord where people are free to pick and choose their convictions.

When you untether Jesus from His Word, as Hill has done here, and Obama and other socialists have done, you can turn Jesus into an advocate of almost anything.  What matters, however, is not what Hill or anyone else says, but what the Bible says.  In Jeremiah 1:5, we read, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” Psalm 22:10 says, “… from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” And perhaps most importantly, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

“Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance” was the headline of a New York Times article about the Pew Forum’s survey of America’s religious landscape. It found that Americans have acquired a “non-dogmatic approach to faith.” In fact, 70% of Americans who claim affiliation to a religious body – including Christians – agreed that “many religions can lead to eternal life.” Nearly the same percentage said that “there’s more than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion.” WHAT?

What’s true of faith is also true of morals when 78% say that there are “absolute standards of right and wrong.” But only 29% say that they “rely on their religion to delineate these standards.” Instead, more than half of the respondents said that they rely on “practical experience and common sense.” As the Book of Judges aptly puts it, “every man did what was right in his own eyes” has become the practice of the day.

Not surprisingly, the media repeatedly used the word “tolerant” to characterize America’s religious beliefs.

But to be regarded as “tolerant” today no longer means extending “full rights of free speech and free expression” to those of all faiths. Instead, it appears that “tolerance” now requires what journalist Terry Mattingly calls a “certain doctrine of salvation,” that regards all “religious paths” as leading “to the top of the same eternal mountain.”

So, it is not possible anymore to debate religious truth claims respectfully. Instead, the new “tolerance,” which has become our ultimate civic virtue, requires abandoning all truth claims lest we “offend” somebody.

This applies everywhere: over the water cooler at work or even in presidential politics. When asked recently in a private meeting with religious leaders whether Jesus was the only way to salvation, Barack Obama reportedly said, “Jesus is the only way for me. I’m not in a position to judge other people.” Was Obama merely trying not to offend non-Christians, or did his answer reflect what he truly believes? This growing relativism is becoming rampant even among “Christians.”

The problem is that all religions make mutually exclusive truth claims. Either Jesus is, as He Himself said, “the only way to the Father,” or He is not. What Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Hindus say about the person and work of Jesus Christ cannot be reconciled. They cannot all be true.

It’s called the law of non-contradiction – it goes back to Aristotle: If proposition A is true – that is, if it conforms to reality – then proposition B, making a contrary claim, cannot be true as well.

We can trace our debased definition of “tolerance” back to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who rejected any distinction between “civil” and “theological intolerance.” Rousseau did not believe that people can “live at peace with those [they] regard as damned.” He saw Christian truth claims as being intolerant. Specifically, he wrote, anyone who dared to say “no salvation outside the church” should be driven out of society – that is precisely what is happening today.

Have we been so taken in by our own culture that we have abandoned truth? The antidote to this is that Christians need to be grounded in their basic beliefs, or indeed will be swept up in the tides of surging relativism.

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, as of May 15, 2007, the total population of the world is 6,595,336,785.

Over two billion of them are Christians.

That’s one out of every three persons on the planet.

But according to the latest research from Todd M. Johnson, Research Fellow and Director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, most non-Christians have never met one.

The vast majority of the world’s non-Christians have relatively little contact with Christians. In fact, over 86% of all Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims do not even know a Christian. Globally, over 80% of all non-Christians do not personally know a Christian.

Read that again, slowly: Over 80% of all non-Christians do not personally know a Christian.

This exposes the heart of our cultural crisis. We have confused the command to not be of the world with not being in it. Western Christians in particular are isolated from the very people we say we long to reach. We have retreated into a subculture of our own making. We populate churches that cater exclusively to the already convinced so that we can be “fed” and “ministered to!”

As a result, we live in a gospel ghetto. We have become insular in not only our thinking, but our very lives. There is even a less-than-subtle hostility toward those who are not Christians among many who claim the Great Commission as their marching orders.

This was not the model of Jesus.

He went into the world; He spent time with those who were far apart from God. He reached out relationally, built friendships, went into their homes, attended their parties, broke bread at their tables.

He was called a friend of sinners.

And the world needs more friends just like Him.

But as a first-century apologist once wrote, “…how can people call for help if they don’t know who to trust? And how can they know who to trust if they haven’t heard of the One who can be trusted? And how can they hear if nobody tells them? And how is anyone going to tell them, unless someone is sent to do it?”

Dr. Paul Dean

From the more radical wing of the “Emerging Church” has emerged a phrase and/or concept that is not only fashionable in that camp but has been picked up by liberals and secularists alike. It is now in vogue to refer to the cross of Christ as “cosmic child abuse.” While Brian McClaren and Steve Chalke speak freely in such terms, Adrian Warnock has chronicled other examples including Philip Yancey in The Jesus I Never Knew, Eugene Rogers in Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God (Challenges in Contemporary Theology), Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore in Let the Children Come : Reimagining Childhood from a Christian Perspective (Families and Faith Series), and Haven Kimmel in The Solace of Leaving Early.

Further, Dr. Peter Jones, author of Spirit Wars: Pagan Renewal in Christian America , warns against the pagan agenda of radical feminism that has been embraced by much of the church and connects that agenda with environmental activism propelled by Gaia worship. Numerous so-called Christians in that society refer to the cross of Christ as “cosmic child abuse.”

Moreover, in his article highlighting the comments of the homosexual Anglican Priest, The Very Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Philip Hywel John, Dr. Albert Mohler not only points out the priest’s belief “that the church’s traditional understanding of the cross of Christ is both ‘repulsive and ‘insane,’ but also cites Giles Fraser, who “throws his lot in with Dr. John. In his words, ‘For, once again, what [John] has been saying is nothing other than a truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible. It turns Christianity into ‘cosmic child abuse.’”

In our present context, we are left with two competing visions of the cross of Christ. Either the cross was insane and a form of cosmic child abuse, or, it was not only just, but appropriate for God to send His Son to die such death. Dr. Mohler is right when he notes, “On this question there is no middle ground.”

It is clear that Christ came into the world for a purpose. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9). Now, this raises a massive question (particularly in the Jewish context): is it right or appropriate or even true that the Messiah should suffer and die? Of course, the Old Testament is filled with references to this particular reality. The problem lies in the fact that most Jews did not understand such nor did it comport with their understanding of the Messiah or the law.

It seems that contemporary minds have the same difficulty, though for different reasons. The first-century Jews thought the Messiah would be a military conqueror. Furthermore, the law declared that anyone who hung upon a tree was cursed of God. In the same way they could not stomach such a notion, neither can today’s liberals fathom God crucifying Christ for their salvation. The truth is that Christ was cursed of God for a time. Six reasons are here offered as to why this action had to be and that it was indeed fitting.

First, it was fitting for the Father to send Christ to taste death for His people because of who God is and the purpose He had in bringing many sons to glory. To put it simply, because all things are for and by God Himself, what He does is right. One of the things God determined to do was to adopt a family and then bring that family to glory; something that family could not do for itself.

The propriety of Christ’s death is set forth in Hebrews 2:10 . The writer simply declares, “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” It was fitting, right, and appropriate for God the Father to send Christ to die. The writer supports his assertion in subtle ways.

As noted, whatever God does is appropriate by virtue of who He is. He is God and all things are for Him and by Him. This reality is highlighted elsewhere in Scripture and is attributed equally and interchangeably to the Father and the Son (Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16-17 ). Paul put it this way to the Corinthians: “yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live” (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Now, God’s purpose was to bring many sons to glory. His redemptive purpose is highlighted throughout Scripture and includes the adoption of a people for Himself. The adopted children of God are destined for glory and will be called, justified, sanctified, and glorified (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:29-30).

Second, because God purposed to bring many sons to glory, Christ had to taste death for His people in order to bring them to glory. Why? Because the stark reality is that sinful human beings cannot save themselves. They must have a Savior and the only sufficient Savior is Christ Himself. Thus, it is Christ who is the captain, author, leader, or trailblazer of salvation for His people. Christ is the One who accomplished salvation for His people.

Third, the question as to why Christ had to die in this context warrants further explanation. In order to bring His people to glory, Christ had to blaze a trail to glory. As noted, He is the author of their salvation. He is the One who leads them into salvation. He is their captain or leader. In that sense, He blazed a trail to and into salvation for His people as the Greek word for “captain” indicates.

But, the writer references the sufferings of Christ. The trail that Christ blazed to and into salvation was a trail that went through death. The collective testimony of Scripture is that He had to suffer and die in order to save His people. The wrath of God abided upon them by virtue of their sin. The wages of sin is death. Thus, Christ died as a substitute for His people in that He tasted death and took the wrath of the Father upon Himself for them. He atoned for their sins: something they could never do for themselves.

As the writer notes, Christ was made perfect through sufferings. The word “perfect” in the Greek speaks of perfection to be sure, but also carries the idea of maturity, end, or goal. Christ was certainly not imperfect, flawed, or sinful. He was and is perfect God. He was perfected in His role of Savior through suffering, death, and ultimately the defeat of death by virtue of His sinlessness. Because He had no sin of His own, death could not hold Him. He achieved His goal, the bringing of His people to glory, by suffering and dying for them.

Fourth, in order to blaze a trail to glory, Christ had to suffer and die as a man. It was appropriate for Messiah to die: “For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11). A few points may be gleaned here.

Christ is the One who sanctifies. That is, He sets His people apart by virtue of His atoning work for them. He sanctified His people or set apart His people from the rest of humanity for the Father. He accomplished this reality at the cross.

At the same time, Christ’s people are also being sanctified. This dynamic is progressive and occurs over a lifetime this side of glory. In justification, the work of Christ is applied to the believer. The believer is declared righteous in God’s sight by virtue of the imputed righteousness of Christ to his account. In sanctification, the righteousness of Christ is progressively imparted to the believer by the Spirit.

Finally, Christ, the One who sanctifies, and His people, those who are being sanctified, are all of one nature or family. The issue here is identification. Christ identified with His people in order to save them. But, the issue goes further. He became a partaker of their nature that He might actually save them by dying in their place as an acceptable substitute. Certainly Christ died as God to satisfy God but He also died as man to be a substitute for man. He had to add humanity to Himself to be an acceptable substitute for men.

Fifth, because Christ suffered and died as man, He is not ashamed to call His people brethren. Because Christ added humanity to His deity, identified with His people, and set them apart, He is not ashamed to call them brethren. They now share the same human nature. By virtue of that reality and His sanctifying work, Christ and His people are brothers.

Sixth, because Christ is not ashamed to call His people brethren, He points them to the Father. The writer quotes Psalm 22:22 to support the assertion that Christ is not ashamed to call His chosen ones brethren. Of course the Psalm is Messianic and speaks volumes to the questioning Jews. The simple statement is this: “saying: ‘I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You (Hebrews 2:12).’”

The Messiah will declare the Father’s name to His brethren. Three points may be gleaned here.

Firstly, the concept of Messiah having brethren supports the notion of his incarnation and the realities to which the author to the Hebrews has been pointing (Christ’s incarnation, suffering, and death).

Secondly, declaring the Father’s name to the brethren is more than mere verbal proclamation. It is Christ who reveals the Father to His people by virtue of who He is as God. In salvation, Christ reveals God to His people.

Thirdly, Christ reveals God through the Holy Spirit in a more in depth manner to His brethren. He does not reveal Him to the rest of humanity in the same way.

The Messiah will also sing praise to the Father in the midst of the assembly. The Greek word for assembly is ecclesia and refers to the believer or those called out of the world by the effectual working of the Spirit and is translated “church.” It is in the midst of the church that Christ will sing praise to the Father. Christ reveals the Father to the church and sings praise to Him in the church. He leads his brothers in the way of salvation.

In verse 13, the writer continues in the same vein as verse 12 by quoting from Isaiah 8:17-18: “And again: ‘I will put My trust in Him.’ And again: ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given me.’” Isaiah, in the midst of Israel (and here the faithful remnant), the Old Testament people of God, who typify the spiritual people of God, declares that he will trust God. Christ is in the midst of God’s true people, the children the Father has given Him, and declares to them that He will trust in God. In this way, Christ unites the church to the Father not only by virtue of His work, but also by constantly pointing to Him and declaring the way of faith.

Christ trusted the Father in the mission given to Him: the work of redemption. Christ is the elder brother who trusts the Father with the church and unites the Father to the church. It was appropriate that Christ taste death for His people that He might constantly point them to the Father.

Far from being cosmic child abuse, the cross is the only action a loving God could have taken to maintain His holy character and be lovingly gracious to guilty sinners at the same time. He is God and what He does is right. He graciously determined to save a people out of lost humanity. Therefore, Christ had to taste death in order to bring His people to glory. Because His people could not get to glory on their own, Christ had to blaze a trail for them to glory. That trail led through death, thus, Christ had to die. He had to die as a man in order to identify with man and become an acceptable substitute for man by virtue of His sinless humanity. As He identifies with man, His people, He is not ashamed to call them brethren and therefore constantly points them to the Father. How fitting…and how loving.